Background People with intellectual disabilities are over-represented in the criminal justice system. The United Nations\' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) enshrines a right to equal access to justice for persons with disabilities (Article 13, UNCRPD). Accessible information is a key aspect of exercising this right. Yet, many jurisdictions, including Ireland, are yet to develop accessible information for disabled people who may be arrested. Aims This paper describes the collaborative development through multidisciplinary and advocate consensus of an accessible (Easy -to- Read) Notice of Rights (ERNR) for people with intellectual disabilities in police custody in Ireland. Methods Guidelines developed by Ireland\'s representative organisation for people with intellectual disabilities and examples of international practice were used to develop a draft ERNR by the primary researcher in partnership with an expert from a representative organisation for people with intellectual disabilities. The ERNR was developed thereafter through two focus groups with a view to achieving consensus with a focus on accessibility, accuracy and layout. This included a multidisciplinary focus group with participants from a representative organisation for people with intellectual disabilities, psychology, speech and language therapy, the police force, public health, forensic psychiatry, mental health, law and, subsequently, a focus group of people with lived experience of intellectual disability. Results Progressive development of the ERNR resulted in incremental improvements in textual accuracy as well as the inclusion of more accessible language and imagery. Originality/value This is the first attempt at developing an easy-to-read document relating to the legal rights of suspects in police custody in Ireland and, accordingly, this procedural innovation promises to assist, not just persons with intellectual disabilities, but also those with limited literacy at the point of arrest. The methodology used in the preparation of the document, employing a focus group to achieve consensus with participation from both multiple disciplines and persons with an intellectual disability, is in harmony with the ethos of the UNCPRD. This methodology may usefully be employed by other member states that have ratified the Convention but have yet to develop accessible version of the legal rights and entitlements that extend to arrested persons under their domestic law.

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder which affects not only the health of the affected child, but also has an economic, psychological and emotional impact on the family as a whole. In the transition from Person with Disability (PWD) act (1995) to Rights of Persons with Disabilities act (RPWD act) (2016), which covers all aspects of life of a person with any disability, epilepsy has been excluded from the list of disorders, resulting in a loss of many of the benefits that were earlier available to persons with epilepsy, causing concern to all caregivers of persons with epilepsy. Additionally, physicians/ pediatricians/ neurologists are not really aware of the benefits that are available to persons with epilepsy, especially children. To address these issues, an expert group meeting of pediatric neurologists and epileptologists in India along with social workers/epilepsy educators legal experts, parents, and teachers was held. The implication of epilepsy being dropped as a disability, was discussed, and most of the experts concurred that epilepsy should be considered as a disability, depending of the type of seizures or the epilepsy syndrome. Also, the current status of income tax benefits, child care benefits, travel concession, schooling and health insurance for children with epilepsy in India were also discussed. The importance of creating awareness on these issues was stressed on. Here authors present the group consensus statement on these legal and social aspects about the care of children with epilepsy.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) resulted in changes to the legal definition of disability and substantially affected how those with voice disorders may qualify for reasonable accommodations under the law. However, there has been little guidance and a lack of awareness about these changes within the voice literature. This article examines the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the changes made in 2008 (ADAAA), and how the law applies to individuals with voice disorders.
METHODS: This is a review article.
METHODS: The ADA and ADAAA are summarized with a particular focus on individuals with voice disorders. Types of reasonable accommodations within the workplace are suggested, and online resources are provided which outline the disclosure and accommodation process. Practical examples are used to provide guidance for clinicians who may be involved in counseling this clinical population.
CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals with voice disorders may not realize that their conditions can be classified as disabilities under the law, entitling them to workplace accommodations and time off to pursue medical treatment. However, disclosure laws such as the right to refrain from mentioning a disability during a job interview may not be protective of individuals with severe voice impairments, as symptoms are often difficult to conceal. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

暂无摘要。

Because of the importance of including ethical considerations in planning efforts for pandemic influenza, in February 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested that the Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Director develop guidance that would serve as a foundation for decision making in preparing for and responding to pandemic influenza. Specifically, the ethics subcommittee was asked to make recommendations regarding ethical considerations relevant to decision making about vaccine and antiviral drug distribution prioritization and development of interventions that would limit individual freedom and create social distancing. The ethics subcommittee identified a number of general ethical considerations including identification of clear goals for pandemic planning, responsibility to maximize preparedness, transparency and public engagement, sound science, commitment to the global community, balancing individual liberty and community interests, diversity in ethical decision making, and commitment to justice. These general ethical considerations are applied to the issues of vaccine and antiviral drug distribution and use of community mitigation interventions.

This article investigates the Norwegian newspaper debate (1998-2002) on the right of homosexual couples to adopt children. It identifies two patterns of meaning within which both anti-adoption and pro-adoption sides of the debate were located: 1) the nuclear family as reference point; and 2) a focus on innate qualities. Parallell to a continuous liberalization of sexualities in Norway we seem to witness a consensus on heteronormativity in Norway on both sides of the debate as the basic axiom in public discussions on homosexuality and adoption. In this article, we explore the nature of the heteronormative arguments and the reason for their appearance in this particular debate. The two patterns of meaning reproduce a perception of lesbians and gays as either a worthy or unworthy minority. These findings may be seen as reflecting fundamental positions regarding the Norwegian modernization project, where both sides of the debate see homosexuality as a central symbol. State feminism may also have played the role of reinforcing gender categories and thereby served as an important condition of possibility for contemporary heteronormativity.

Contemporary disability law takes into account the insight that physical and mental conditions need not be disabling but for the environmental and attitudinal barriers that keep people with disabilities from social participation on a plane of equality with others. The need to use a wheelchair does not disable except for curbs and stairs, and many mental conditions do not disable except for social attitudes. The \"AAPL Guideline for Forensic Evaluation of Psychiatric Disabilities\" is a refreshing departure from writings that approach disability from a perspective that focuses on nothing but medical considerations and the study of how individuals are defective compared with established norms. The Guideline stresses the process of examination and list important legal considerations for examiners to apply. But the Guideline does not show any awareness of a model of disability other than a medical one that classifies individuals by defect. Psychiatrists would do well to consider the role of social barriers when using the Guideline in making disability-related examinations.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。